Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 282 posts

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#261

Post by criddell »

sanswork wrote: post #204
NickNameNick wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they become a problem for advertising networks when they are no-longer able to proved enough money to be worth the content creators time to accept/administrate. And when a network ad-spots start drying up, the advertisers will have to switch. at least, that's how I'd hope it would work.

Where do you expect the advertisers will switch to? Nah whats going to happen is that sites will just start doing one of two things. a) they will start blocking users that appear to be using ad blockers. b) they will start including ads in ways that make ad blockers ineffective. Embedding them in content or proxying the ads to come from the host itself. Ads aren't going away.

Ads don't have to go away, but it's thinking like yours that leads to this adversarial atmosphere.

Many of us hope for option c - that publishers work with ad networks to fix some of the problems that drive people to ad blockers in the first place. Some people object to advertising no matter how it is done, but I think that's a relative small number of people. Most people will accept well-behaved ads.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#262

Post by imagist »

sanswork wrote: post #57
_m7bj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attention is more valuable than that. It's /my/ attention, I get to set the price, and I don't accept their offer. They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable.

You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. It is your attention which you are agreeing to trade for information or entertainment. >They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable. This is more commonly happening now. Then we all have to deal with people complaining about that. Taking up /my/ attention which they are refusing to pay for. Pay me…

> You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads.

How do I know this without viewing ads that I don't agree to view?

> It is your attention which you are agreeing to trade for information or entertainment.

The ego required to tell people who are explicitly not agreeing to your terms that they are implicitly agreeing to your terms is appalling. Surely we can believe people when they tell us what they agree to.

> This is more commonly happening now. Then we all have to deal with people complaining about that. Taking up /my/ attention which they are refusing to pay for. Pay me for reading your posts.

You loaded this hacker news page with the intent of reading other users' posts.

I've never once loaded a page with the intent of viewing an ad.

If you don't want to view my posts, I'd be entirely fine with you writing a browser plugin that strips my posts from your page. Consume the content you want to consume, that's your prerogative.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#263

Post by imagist »

dispose13432 wrote: post #107
_m7bj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place…

>The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place alternative content where the ads would be, requesting that I disable my ad blocker, or like them on facebook as an alternative. So would you suggest (or would you even use) AdBlockers identify themselves to the website (so I can write "if($_SERVER["AdBlocker]){echo "Sorry, see ads or leave…

There are already websites that detect my ad blocker and request that I turn on ads or leave, usually in condescending language, but I do leave.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#264

Post by coldpie »

tomc1985 wrote: post #123
dispose13432 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the "long-tail" of content. Sure, Wikpedia will stick around post adblock, and so will big conglomerates (they can afford to put up paywalls, like WSJ and others). Many content-farms will just stick to being a "review for hire" gig. The problem is that the small shops will close down.

You know who else will stick around? All the guys with cheap hosting accounts making web pages like the 1990's. Ironically they seem to be the only ones with content worth reading...

Yeah, I've hosted websites since I was a teenager. Ten bucks a month is pretty affordable for anyone employed. If the choice is between malicious advertisements funding professional content, or free content from amateurs, I pick the amateurs. Luckily, Patreon and pay walls (yes, I like pay walls) are providing us other options to retain the professionals as well.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#265

Post by imagist »

Smaug123 wrote: post #233
literallycancer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

"The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker." - there is also the externalised cost that the sites which rely on ads will eventually go bust if everyone does the same thing as you do. Given the current state of things, you are defecting on a massive Prisoners' Dilemma.

That's not a cost, that's a benefit. There's not one ad-supported site I care about that I wouldn't be willing to donate to. And I'd be ecstatic if Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/BuzzFeed/etc. went out of business.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#266

Post by dumb-saint »

sanswork wrote: post #228
jodrellblank wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you want to consume what they've produced. So I'm agreeing to the contract before even seeing the content? I guess you're fine with me having 30 days to return the content under the Consumer Rights Act (UK) if it's not as described and they'll refund me the advertising money they made from me, right? Particularly, if you say it's a trade of content for attention, then: For goods and services bought online, yo…

What is it with all the pretend lawyers in this thread bringing up their misunderstanding of contract laws? Do you not realise how silly you all sound? Why do you think this comment is relevant to the thread at all? I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point. I said you were paid for your attention. So in that case the transaction would actually be the other way around. Should the site be able…

> I said you were paid for your attention

I get payed for my attention in euros, after signing a contract or entering an agreement. Maybe that sounds silly to you, but that is how I roll.

I assume that you are implying that I have some moral obligation to the people publishing publicly accessible content. If you are not implying that, then we are all in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. We both agree that ad blockers are fine, case closed.

If you are implying that, you are wrong. The WORLD WIDE WEB was not built on that premise and we were here before the marketeers and advertisers arrived. If the former manage to make some money while providing people with something they want, that's fine. I have nothing against honest business. But don't try to pretend that I have any obligation to do anything just because I accessed a resource that you made public. If you want to charge for your resource, name the price and make it private. Maybe I'll buy it. I buy books all the time. But it's not my fault or moral failing if your business model doesn't work.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#267

Post by dispose13432 »

type0 wrote: post #251
dispose13432 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how. You own your machine but not the text. Right now it's still somewhat hypothetical, but what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"? H…

> You own your machine but not the text. You don't get to own the text just because you can read it, see if you read this - it is still my text (because I wrote it!). >what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. And how would I know it's safe? I don't even let the closest friends on the wifi because they don't run adblockers…

>It is still my machine, so long as I physically own it. If I run a virtual machine in the cloud it's not mine you see, because then I'm just renting it. If ad networks want to remove the ability to block ads they would have to own the machines and rent out those computers to users, they are free to do this.

You're free to do what you want, but not to read content.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#268

Post by chc »

sintaxi wrote: post #241
chc wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't steal from or scam stores even if I can get away with it, because while I don't deep-down care if they make a profit, I do feel it's wrong to cheat them out of it. If I want what a store is offering, I feel like I should deal with them fairly. If I don't want it, I just don't patronize the store.

My program (Browser) can ask their program (Server) do things. It may deny ANY request it wishes based on ANY criteria that THEY get to set. Their program is under no obligation to do anything my program asks. Their program (Server) may ask my program (Browser) to do things and my program may deny ANY request based on ANY criteria that I get to set. My program is under no obligation to do anything their program asks.…

Given the same premises, you can prove invasive tracking to be "reasonable and fair." I mean, they're just using information you sent them, right? In fact, it's not right, because this deliberately blinkered view of the interaction misses a lot of important details.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#269

Post by jodrellblank »

sanswork wrote: post #228
jodrellblank wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you want to consume what they've produced. So I'm agreeing to the contract before even seeing the content? I guess you're fine with me having 30 days to return the content under the Consumer Rights Act (UK) if it's not as described and they'll refund me the advertising money they made from me, right? Particularly, if you say it's a trade of content for attention, then: For goods and services bought online, yo…

What is it with all the pretend lawyers in this thread bringing up their misunderstanding of contract laws? Do you not realise how silly you all sound? Why do you think this comment is relevant to the thread at all? I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point. I said you were paid for your attention. So in that case the transaction would actually be the other way around. Should the site be able…

I said you were paid for your attention

And I'm disagreeing, by analogy. That's how it's relevant.

Should the site be able to ask for a refund on their content since you didn't provide what they expected(ad views)?

Also valid, and also leads to the same conclusion: it's a nonsensical idea. Therefore one thing is not 'payment' for the other. There's one protocol that making a HTTP request returns content at the discretion of the server, and there's no advance agreement that the content has value, or that the client is agreeing to trade anything at all for the alleged value.

I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point.

I didn't say you said I was, only that content is not payment for watching adverts - and that it would be daft if that was the case.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#270

Post by pbhjpbhj »

_m7bj wrote: post #61
sanswork wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. It is your attention which you are agreeing to trade for information or entertainment. >They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable. This is more commonly happening now. Then we all have to deal with people complaining about that. Taking up /my/ attention which they are refusing to pay for. Pay me…

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place…

FWIW paying someone with PayPal doesn't require you to have an account, you can pay direct with a credit/debit card.
Post reply on HN